CONTEXT: The manual microscopic examination (MME) of the urine sediment is an imprecise and labor-intensive procedure. Many laboratories have developed rules from clinical parameters or urinalysis results to limit the number of these examinations. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of urinalysis specimens on which an MME of the urine sediment was performed, document how various rules influence this rate, and determine whether any new information was learned from the MME. DESIGN: Participants selected 10 random urinalysis tests received during each traditional shift and determined if an MME was performed until a total of 50 urinalysis tests with an MME were reviewed. Participants recorded the rules that elicited an MME and any new information learned from such an examination. RESULTS: The MME rate for the median institution was 62.5%. An MME of urine was most frequently done for an abnormal urinalysis result and often resulted in new information being learned, irrespective of the rule that elicited the MME. The median institution learned new information as a result of the manual examination 66% of the time. The use of an automated microscopic analyzer was associated with fewer manual examinations (P = .005), whereas the ability of a clinician to order a manual examination was associated with more manual examinations (P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: The use of an automated microscopic analyzer may decrease the number of MMEs. An MME when triggered by an abnormal macroscopic appearance of urine, a physician request, or virtually any positive urinalysis result often resulted in new information.
CONTEXT: The manual microscopic examination (MME) of the urine sediment is an imprecise and labor-intensive procedure. Many laboratories have developed rules from clinical parameters or urinalysis results to limit the number of these examinations. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of urinalysis specimens on which an MME of the urine sediment was performed, document how various rules influence this rate, and determine whether any new information was learned from the MME. DESIGN:Participants selected 10 random urinalysis tests received during each traditional shift and determined if an MME was performed until a total of 50 urinalysis tests with an MME were reviewed. Participants recorded the rules that elicited an MME and any new information learned from such an examination. RESULTS: The MME rate for the median institution was 62.5%. An MME of urine was most frequently done for an abnormal urinalysis result and often resulted in new information being learned, irrespective of the rule that elicited the MME. The median institution learned new information as a result of the manual examination 66% of the time. The use of an automated microscopic analyzer was associated with fewer manual examinations (P = .005), whereas the ability of a clinician to order a manual examination was associated with more manual examinations (P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: The use of an automated microscopic analyzer may decrease the number of MMEs. An MME when triggered by an abnormal macroscopic appearance of urine, a physician request, or virtually any positive urinalysis result often resulted in new information.
Authors: Emre Yalcinkaya; Hayriye Erman; Eray Kirac; Afife Serifoglu; Alperen Aksoy; Ferruh K Isman; Mustafa B Cekmen Journal: Medeni Med J Date: 2019-09-27
Authors: Christa M Cobbaert; Figen Arslan; Imma Caballé Martín; Antoni Alsius Serra; Ester Picó-Plana; Víctor Sánchez-Margalet; Antonio Carmona-Fernández; John Burden; André Ziegler; Walter Bechel Journal: Pract Lab Med Date: 2019-09-19